Latest news on the Belgian wave and the Petit-Rechain picture

Here is Patrick telling about his faked pictures it needs translation but even with out it being translated in English anyone can get the picture was
created by Patrick and he admits they are fake and has no regrets about it.

I dont think we have heard the last about these photographs. I read initially that this 'Patrick M' had sour grapes because he had sold the
copyright to the photographs and was no-longer receiving any money for them, so this was his attempt to de-value them for the current owner. Here is
part of an email from the writer Gildas Bourdais on the subject (and, to date, Patrick M has been unable or unwilling to replicate his hoax)

>Guy Mossay is the professional photographer to whom Patrick M.
>gave the licence to exploit the copyright.

>BTW, if Patrick M. is telling the truth today, he let Mossay
>sell the his fake picture copyright on his behalf for over 21
>years and is therefore he is a thief. My publisher bought it in
>1997, and it was rather expensive. If he is lying now, he is
>also dishonest, of course. So, I suggest caution.

>He says today that he is going to make a model and photograph it
>again. Let's see if he can. (update- as of August 2012, he hasnt)

>Physicist Auguste Meessen, who managed to find him, has debated
>with him for two hours. He has stressed special properties of
>the picture. Among them, the peculiar aspects of the lights, and
>the decomposition in three basic colours, blue, red and green,
>which showed no image in the red component. An ordinary white
>light should have given one.

>However, in a private letter that he sent me today, Auguste
>Meessen seems to admit that Patrick, together with a friend, may
>have made the model, and picture. I have just asked him to
>confirm that. But, for the moment, Patrick M. has given no proof
>of his claim: not even a picture of his model, which he dids not
>keep...

Originally posted by Thunda
Among them, the peculiar aspects of the lights, and
>the decomposition in three basic colours, blue, red and green,
>which showed no image in the red component. An ordinary white
>light should have given one.

This is, in my views, for anyone who has seen the analysis of the picture taken, one of the most obvious thing to consider when thinking about a
fake.

Besides the fact that no one, including Mr Patrick M., has been able so far to reproduce an effect that can be comparable, we also must take into
account the other witnesses accounts (and there are hundreds) of the same phenomenon.

Contrary to popular belief in the ultra skecptics & debunkers circles, people do not see something if there is nothing to see. I do not remember at
this point the details of it, have looked a bit around for it but couldn't find (I didn't try too hard), but there was an experiment that was done
in France at some time during the 1970's.

The idea was to invite the whole country to observe the sky carefully during one whole night. The results were surprising. Not one single sighting,
although the event was well followed by the population. If there's nothing to be seen, well people won't see it.

I do not believe a single second without more proof that the confession of that man Mr Patrick M. is sincere. There is something wrong there. There
must be a reason, and it will be found... I have spoken with many persons directly involved in the follow up of this case, and this picture is
probably the best ever taken of a UFO. This may be why some people have been interested in dismissing it...

I'm a great fan of Auguste Meessen - though I don't share his belief in humanoid aliens - and was very disappointed to see him apparently fooled by
Patrick M.

But I understand that the other Patrick, the photoanalyst Patrick Ferryn, was dubious about the pic from the start. Perhaps he's now convinced
Meessen that he was righr all along.

Perhaps we should refocus on the excellent paper by Colonel Amond, General de Brouwer, Professor Meessen and Patrick Ferryn on the triangular UAP
observed by Colonel and Mme. Amond at Ernage, December 11 1989.

a reply to: PhineasCousland The reason that the U.S. would fly this over Belgium is that's where NATO headquarters are. They
were just showing off the latest and much rumoured toy to the top brass...and as explained elsewhere in this thread, Russia.

Show off doesn't happen this way in NATO. They actually do not test flight or fly for demonstration purposes this way. They have far better places to
do that instead of over a well populated country, trust me. This was not a "common" airplane.

I agree that it was not a common plane, but I disagree about them not flying classified craft over heavily and densely populated country's. I think
they do it all the time. See the thing is most people don't look up. SO who's going to notice 99.999999999% of the time?

I think that sometimes in order to make a point they do buzz places so that someone will notice. They occasionally want the opposition or even
backers to get a glimpse to further their agenda. Whether it be tacit pride (if you're the backer) or tacit intimidation ( if your the opposition)
Besides it never hurts to have some one some where have a moment of revelation where the go "they are real!!!"

I think something was running amok over belgium during those sightings. I also don't think the picture of the Belgium flying triangle is real. But
thats just my personal opinion.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.